Quote from: Bren;1114106That's the impression I've gotten from the parties I've been in and from some of their other PCs that players have described.

I'm only going on what I've seen and heard from my fellow players. My sample size is very limited. And there certainly are some human PCs, but in that sample, one party has an elf, half-elf, half-drow, tabaxi, gnome, two humans, and one probably human who is a warlock of some kind who has darkvision and seems kind of like he is half-undead. (I don't know what his pact is. Seems fairly dark though he isn't evil.) The other party was a tiefling, a dwarf, and 3 gnomes -- no humans. The players who described other PCs they run/ran seemed to run about 4-1 nonhuman to human. But that sample could be skewed since many people are inclined to describe their more unusual PCs.

We clearly differ on what's unusual for PC races; the only non-PHB race you name is the tabaxi, and the distribution doesn't seem too strange (but 3 gnomes and no humans is a bit of an outlier, even by my standards). Warlocks often have Devil's Sight, which lets them see normally in darkness, normal or magical, to 120 feet. "Half-undead" sounds like the Undying patron rather than a race/subrace/modifier, but it could be something else. Speaking of tabaxi:

QuoteAnd they climb really well too, I think. Certainly better than my average strength rogue.

The climbing speed of tabaxi is broken if you let them climb like a spider. I interpret it as climbing at that speed without needing an ability check but not able to climb something that a human couldn't climb with an ability check, and that's more than enough. Climbing of that sort doesn't seem to come up often; the additional move lets tabaxi monks or rogues cover the range of almost every spell in a single 6 second round, and can affect every combat.

QuoteI don't recall that OD&D explicitly provided for any race. It explicitly provided for humans, elves, dwarves, and hobbits. It didn't explicitly forbid any race though. OD&D was very much DIY.

   

Quote from: Men & MagicOther Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.

That's more than you get from AL rules for races. You are correct about Warriors of Mars by Gary Gygax and Brian Blume; along with cyborgs, robots and androids, they suggest more of a kitchen sink game world than the Forgotten Realms.

QuoteWhy not play a bear? Sure your armor and weapons will need to be custom crafted, but your practically immune to bees and get to eat all that sweet, sweet honey.

If you don't allow bears or force them to go unarmed, then anyone who values the right to bear arms will hate you.

Animals were on the list for neutrals, so presumably you could be reincarnated as a bear. Werebear was on both the lawful and neutral lists. I can't recall anyone chaotic being reincarnated as an undead, which seems theologically suspect to me. From our campaign, I specifically recall a metallic dragon, a centaur and a giant squid (who had to retire from adventuring, pretty much). I played a badger (bipedal and rapier wielding) once but not as a result of reincarnation.

QuoteThere were some good things, some interesting things, and some crap things in Greyhawk. (The stat bonuses definitely promoted using alternate methods of rolling up PCs. Roll 4 dice and keep 3 was very popular.) As I recall, Blackmoor was mostly crap. The Temple of the Frog...what a waste of space. :rolleyes:

I'd say there was a bigger jump from OD&D to OD&D+Greyhawk than from OD&D+Greyhawk to AD&D 1e, or any subsequent change of edition. Greyhawk defined D&D thereafter to a large extent; the minimal bonuses for ability scores and the fewer classes (if not races) of the original books seem very strange to anyone who started with a later D&D. Blackmoor contained much less interesting content (two human-only classes with limited members above a certain level; underwater monsters, treasure and adventuring; hit location rules; the Temple of the Frog which is more how not to present a module) than Strategic Review (rangers, illusionists, bards; monsters and magic items; explanations of alignment and the magic system).

Quote from: rawma;1114115We clearly differ on what's unusual for PC races

While tabaxi and tieflings both are unusual to me, what I was commenting on was parties that are entirely or mostly non-human and no parties that are entirely or mostly human. That implies a Star Wars cantina style setting with lots of species all mingled together as if that meant no more than brown, black, or blond hair coloring. To be fair, that seems in keeping with what I've seen of the NPCs in Forgotten Realms so its not inconsistent with the setting, I just don't particularly like that setting for a fantasy RPG. (I already have the cantina effect in Star Wars.)

Quote(but 3 gnomes and no humans is a bit of an outlier, even by my standards).

Actually a party of all gnomes would make more sense to me.

QuoteWarlocks often have Devil's Sight, which lets them see normally in darkness, normal or magical, to 120 feet. "Half-undead" sounds like the Undying patron rather than a race/subrace/modifier, but it could be something else.

That sounds like what he probably is.

Given how many characters can have darkvision (10 of 12 in my sample size), there's a fairly strong disencentive for playing a normal human.

QuoteYou are correct about Warriors of Mars by Gary Gygax and Brian Blume; along with cyborgs, robots and androids, they suggest more of a kitchen sink game world than the Forgotten Realms.

To be fair, cyborgs, robots, and androids weren't on the wandering monster tables and Mars, being a different planet (and probably a different solar system and/or galaxy and universe), than the planet for Greyhawk, emphasizes that those things don't have to all be in the same campaign. Though the Lake Geneva house campaign did have space ships and other sci-fi things.

QuoteIf you don't allow bears or force them to go unarmed, then anyone who values the right to bear arms will hate you.

I'm a firm supporter of the right to keep and arm bears. Fairs, fair after all.

QuoteAnimals were on the list for neutrals, so presumably you could be reincarnated as a bear. Werebear was on both the lawful and neutral lists. I can't recall anyone chaotic being reincarnated as an undead, which seems theologically suspect to me.

Reincarnating as another living creature leaves undead off the table, so to speak.

QuoteI'd say there was a bigger jump from OD&D to OD&D+Greyhawk than from OD&D+Greyhawk to AD&D 1e, or any subsequent change of edition.

I'd agree there is a good case supporting your first half of your statement. I find the second half a bit doubtful, but as I haven't played any of the versions between AD&D and 5E I don't have a lot beyond internet gossip to support my scepticism.

Quote from: Bren;1114117While tabaxi and tieflings both are unusual to me, what I was commenting on was parties that are entirely or mostly non-human and no parties that are entirely or mostly human.

QuoteActually a party of all gnomes would make more sense to me.

OK, I see. The +1 to each ability score (or +1 to each of two and a feat) is maybe not attractive enough mechanically to tempt players, but in my experience enough AL players still play humans anyway. But I'm OK with the Star Wars cantina feel (or the variability of any comic book superhero team) in an FRPG.

Since AL is a bunch of pickup games, it's really unlikely you'll get a single race party. We once had an all fighter (but one rogue) party of six, which was weird and also not effective for certain challenges. Also I once was in a (racially mixed) group of Bards and Barbarians, and we declared the last character who then joined to be a B'Monk to preserve our newly coined "Killer Bees" party name.

QuoteGiven how many characters can have darkvision (10 of 12 in my sample size), there's a fairly strong disencentive for playing a normal human.

Dragonborn and halflings also lack darkvision and are also popular. The cost of providing light (e.g., a light cantrip) is little enough that darkvision isn't so big an advantage (unless you plan a lot of group stealth, which excludes the heavy armor low dexterity types of any race). (Plus two half elves or half orcs give you a human! )

Re: changes in D&D edition:

QuoteI'd agree there is a good case supporting your first half of your statement. I find the second half a bit doubtful, but as I haven't played any of the versions between AD&D and 5E I don't have a lot beyond internet gossip to support my scepticism.

I mean a single edition step, and I'm giving short shrift to the D&D versus AD&D branch (someone with more experience of the former can comment on that comparison). 1e and 2e are very similar, so the candidates would be 2e TSR to 3e WOTC, from 3e or 3.5e to 4e, and from 4e to 5e. 4e seems unusual compared to any of the other editions, but mostly as a matter of emphasis and it failed to (re)define future D&D. A lot of this could just be the usual tendency toward the mean; the Greyhawk supplement was possible in 1975 in a way that equivalently dramatic changes at the time of 3e or 4e were not.

In any case OD&D alone versus OD&D+Greyhawk(+anything else) should be carefully distinguished.

Quote from: rawma;1114121We once had an all fighter (but one rogue) party of six, which was weird and also not effective for certain challenges. Also I once was in a (racially mixed) group of Bards and Barbarians, and we declared the last character who then joined to be a B'Monk to preserve our newly coined "Killer Bees" party name.

He's a monk. Medieval monks were brothers. I'd have gone with Brother Monk.

Quote from: Bren;1114122He's a monk. Medieval monks were brothers. I'd have gone with Brother Monk.

D'oh! I was an unlettered barbarian but the bards should have thought of that.

Quote from: Bren;1114117

Quote from: rawma;1114115We clearly differ on what's unusual for PC races

While tabaxi and tieflings both are unusual to me, what I was commenting on was parties that are entirely or mostly non-human and no parties that are entirely or mostly human. That implies a Star Wars cantina style setting with lots of species all mingled together as if that meant no more than brown, black, or blond hair coloring. To be fair, that seems in keeping with what I've seen of the NPCs in Forgotten Realms so its not inconsistent with the setting, I just don't particularly like that setting for a fantasy RPG. (I already have the cantina effect in Star Wars.)

OD&D lets players play as any race with the referee's permission, as you point out. My printing explicitly talks about players choosing to play Balrog PCs. Moreover, OD&D expects the players to have a coterie of monsters at their service. In my last game, players had a Lawful Werebear, a Brass Dragon, a Hill Giant and some other fun things in their retinue.

Quote from: Bren;1114117Given how many characters can have darkvision (10 of 12 in my sample size), there's a fairly strong disencentive for playing a normal human.

Note that in OD&D, player-characters and their allies can never see in the dark in the underworld. Only the referee's monsters (including regular humans) can do that.

Quote from: rawma;1114115

Quote from: Bren;1114106There were some good things, some interesting things, and some crap things in Greyhawk. (The stat bonuses definitely promoted using alternate methods of rolling up PCs. Roll 4 dice and keep 3 was very popular.) As I recall, Blackmoor was mostly crap. The Temple of the Frog...what a waste of space. :rolleyes:

I'd say there was a bigger jump from OD&D to OD&D+Greyhawk than from OD&D+Greyhawk to AD&D 1e, or any subsequent change of edition. Greyhawk defined D&D thereafter to a large extent; the minimal bonuses for ability scores and the fewer classes (if not races) of the original books seem very strange to anyone who started with a later D&D. Blackmoor contained much less interesting content (two human-only classes with limited members above a certain level; underwater monsters, treasure and adventuring; hit location rules; the Temple of the Frog which is more how not to present a module) than Strategic Review (rangers, illusionists, bards; monsters and magic items; explanations of alignment and the magic system).

Even allowing for subjective tastes, this is an objectively crazy thing to say that makes you two look crazy in your crazy heads. Supplement II is just behind Supplement III as best OD&D products after Books I-III. Greyhawk may have had more influence but that was for two reasons: first, it was a ridiculously over the top example of power creep, so players loved it. Second, it was written by Gygax, who also happened to be the guy that wrote AD&D. Surprise, surprise that it had a lasting influence.

Without Supplement II, however, you wouldn't have:
• Assassins
• Monks
• An admittedly stupid hit location system that is nevertheless fun to use on occasion (such as a joust or duel)
• Lots of new monsters, including dinosaurs, tons of aquatic monsters and the entire civilization of Sahuagin
• Rules for the players becoming lycanthropes (I mean seriously, how did Book II include lycanthropes and no lycanthropy...)
• A raft of magic items
• The Temple of the Frog setting and adventure (if you don't see the genius of that adventure, read this)
• Some basic guidelines for underwater adventures
• Rules for sages
• Rules for diseases

Quote from: Theros;1114147Note that in OD&D, player-characters and their allies can never see in the dark in the underworld. Only the referee's monsters (including regular humans) can do that.

Noted. Damn, that was some stupidly arbitrary shit. Glad the game moved away from that one.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114148Noted. Damn, that was some stupidly arbitrary shit. Glad the game moved away from that one.

Not arbitrary. It just indicates that there is something unnatural about the underworld. For example, all doors are automatically stuck in the underworld, but swing open for the monsters. Even if you spike a door open, it will at least try to close when you are out of sight, blocking off escape routes. If you think in terms of horror movie tropes, all this stuff makes a lot of sense.

You don't know D&D until you know OD&D.

Quote from: Theros;1114151Not arbitrary. It just indicates that there is something unnatural about the underworld. For example, all doors are automatically stuck in the underworld, but swing open for the monsters. Even if you spike a door open, it will at least try to close when you are out of sight, blocking off escape routes. If you think in terms of horror movie tropes, all this stuff makes a lot of sense.

You don't know D&D until you know OD&D.

Justify it to yourself if you like, but I still call it arbitrary bullshit. I have no reverence for early D&D's stupidity even though I played it back in the day.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114160Justify it to yourself if you like, but I still call it arbitrary bullshit. I have no reverence for early D&D's stupidity even though I played it back in the day.

How is it arbitrary? No monster has an innate racial ability to "see in the dark" in OD&D. Elves don't get infravision as a race. That doesn't exist in 3LBB. If a player plays an Elf, he gets ALL the abilities listed in the entry in the monster section. If he didn't, then THAT would be arbitrary.

Anyway, if all the teenagers had Jason's supernatural stealth, then Friday the 13th would be a boring movie. If a player in a horror RPG expected those powers, I'd call him an entitled idiot. I'm not saying D&D is a horror RPG, of course, but it has horror elements (vampires, werewolves, zombies etc.) that are best understood in that framework. If you disregard that, then yes, it looks arbitrary.

Quote from: Theros;1114151Not arbitrary. It just indicates that there is something unnatural about the underworld. For example, all doors are automatically stuck in the underworld, but swing open for the monsters. Even if you spike a door open, it will at least try to close when you are out of sight, blocking off escape routes. If you think in terms of horror movie tropes, all this stuff makes a lot of sense.

You don't know D&D until you know OD&D.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114160Justify it to yourself if you like, but I still call it arbitrary bullshit. I have no reverence for early D&D's stupidity even though I played it back in the day.

Quote from: Theros;1114174How is it arbitrary? No monster has an innate racial ability to "see in the dark" in OD&D. Elves don't get infravision as a race. That doesn't exist in 3LBB. If a player plays an Elf, he gets ALL the abilities listed in the entry in the monster section. If he didn't, then THAT would be arbitrary.

Anyway, if all the teenagers had Jason's supernatural stealth, then Friday the 13th would be a boring movie. If a player in a horror RPG expected those powers, I'd call him an entitled idiot. I'm not saying D&D is a horror RPG, of course, but it has horror elements (vampires, werewolves, zombies etc.) that are best understood in that framework. If you disregard that, then yes, it looks arbitrary.

The "mythic underworld" has been making a comeback in recent years. It's been explained as "living dungeons" based on dungeon management simulator video games, but the concept is identical. It even shows up in anime based on D&D by way of JRPGs.

What I don't like are the irrational resistance to mythic underworlds and living dungeons I see occasionally. Faux realistic dungeons with ecologies can't replicate the OD&D dungeons. Why are dungeons full of slimes and undead acceptable, but explaining other monsters with things like minion hives and summoning portals is unacceptable?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114179What I don't like are the irrational resistance to mythic underworlds and living dungeons I see occasionally. Faux realistic dungeons with ecologies can't replicate the OD&D dungeons. Why are dungeons full of slimes and undead acceptable, but explaining other monsters with things like minion hives and summoning portals is unacceptable?

I don't mind some dungeons being gonzo-weird like old D&D dungeons, but I do prefer for those to be the exception rather than the norm.

Quote from: Theros;1114147OD&D lets players...

I may be crankier than usual, but I do get tired of people explaining  OD&D to me. Unless you played the game before it was published in 1974 you aren't telling me anything I didn't at one time know.

QuoteNote that in OD&D, player-characters and their allies can never see in the dark in the underworld. Only the referee's monsters (including regular humans) can do that.

Note that this was already covered in posts #406-407.

QuoteWithout Supplement II, however, you wouldn't have:
• Assassins
Never felt the need for them.
• Monks
How I wish the Monk class had been skipped. Damn 1970s TV show. Snatch the pebble from your own goddamn hand!  
• An admittedly stupid hit location system...
I'd say "admittedly stupid" says all that needs saying.
• Lots of new monsters, including dinosaurs, tons of aquatic monsters and the entire civilization of Sahuagin
Never used them.
• Rules for the players becoming lycanthropes (I mean seriously, how did Book II include lycanthropes and no lycanthropy...)
I'd already created my own for the guy who wanted to run a wereleopard. Which is what Gygax originally figured DMs would do.
• A raft of magic items
Since I never used any of the additional aquatic monsters, I also never needed the raft.
• The Temple of the Frog setting and adventure (if you don't see the genius of that adventure, read this)
I didn't say it was unplayable. I said it was a waste of space.
• Some basic guidelines for underwater adventures
I didn't need an entire supplement for this. An article in the Strategic Review would have covered it.
• Rules for sages
Ditto.
• Rules for diseases
Because everyone wants Conan or Ffahrd and the Gray Mouser to come down with some nasty diseases. That's just got to really improve your Swords & Sorcery style game. :rolleyes:

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114148Noted. Damn, that was some stupidly arbitrary shit. Glad the game moved away from that one.

It wasn't arbitrary. Like doors opening automatically for monsters, the rule on darkness was intended to maintain darkness as both a risk and a constraint in dungeon exploration for all PCs because the designer thought that would make a better play experience. So it wasn't arbitrary. There wasn't a particularly good in-game explanation for the difference, but it wasn't arbitrary.

Quote from: Bren;1114230I may be crankier than usual, but I do get tired of people explaining  OD&D to me. Unless you played the game before it was published in 1974 you aren't telling me anything I didn't at one time know.

Definitely "crankier than usual." It is a forum, I am speaking to everyone, even when I am replying to someone. I get tired of "Original Gamers" pulling the "Don't talk to me about D&D! I was there! Get off my lawn!" card. Not everything is about your personal history.